they're going to be gone until after the election. so this is a chance to take care of bills that piled up over the summer, and then deal with them before the break. >> thanks for your time. >> my pleasure. >> next, the communicators with three journalists looking at three technology and telecom issues expected to be debated this fall in congress. then a discussion on the future of the world economy. after that, look at the iranian nuclear program, with remarks from a former advicor to key iranian officials and later panelists at the brookings institution talking about defense policy. >> well, summer is over, as are the political conventions.

congress is returning to washington. the sec will be holding hearings again, and this week on the communicators, we're joined by three technology reporters to look at the upcoming legislative and policy agenda which involves technology. elizabeth wassermann is the tech editor at political. one of the issues we covered on "communicators" is cybersecurity. what's the status of and it do you see further action this fall? >> yes. when the senate left town this summer, they had just failed to pass a democratic back bill on cybersecurity that was calling for more requirements on critical infrastructure industries, such as power plants, pipelines, and water systems. the republicans didn't want to

leave it as a full buffet. they give lip service to the fact they could come back with a compromise. however in the intervening time we had the political conventions and each party, fueled the topic with a little more rhetoric and finger-pointing, and at it really going to be interesting to see whether they revisit cybersecurity when they come back in town. >> now there has been some talk that president obama might look at cybersecurity through an executive order. >> yes, and during his -- in the party's platform at the democratic convention, that was -- that he could go that route, and the white house says that either an executive order or some type of executive action is still in the cards. so, we'll all be watching that, too. >> anything to add? >> the white house -- there's a draft executive order they're

not acknowledging but it's out there. so definitely some discussion about what that would look like. it's not dissimilar to the final version of the senate bill, which was essentially voluntary public-private council that would implement standard that would be considered best practices, what incentives could be implemented are in question because this isn't legislation. at it an executive program. and there are authorities and therefore more limited. the real question is whether industry would play ball, and some would, particularly i think telecom industries, some of these already fairly sophisticated -- these industries have taken the measures. they would be open to this, especially if they received some form of liability protection or information sharing from the government about threats. however, there are also some fields out there, talking about banking or utilities, security software providers, believe it or not, the implementation of these practices would engender

some sort of liability for them, particularly regards clients who do experience failure. that's always been the rub when it comes to cybersecurity legislation. there are no rules now. opposite you implement rules, people are can'table for following them, even if they're voluntary. we're talking about civil suits and contracts and collusion. so that's the issue, and whether or not industry would be willing to -- especially some of these already heavily regulated but large industries like the utility providers and the transportation companies -- would they be willing to play ball with an executive order. doesn't look very good for the administration. >> wheat -- what's the mood on the hill if president obama issued that executive order. >> unsurprisingly people's opinions break down whether they liked libberman's bill in the first place. so the supporters of that,

senator feinstein, lieberman, they would like to see an executive order if nothing gets done on the hill. whereas the republicans were leading the on circumstance senator mccain and others are saying this would be a power grab by the president. he didn't get what he wanted in congress and is now going to go around them. senator lieberman had been saying for a long time, if this didn't get done by the end of jewel -- before july, before they went to reese, it wouldn't get done at all. now he is saying, well, it might still happen. but if you were going to bet for whether congress is going to overcome they're partisan divide and come together on an issue like this, it is more likely the executive order happening than congress getting something done. >> one of the wild cards in all this is the prospect of a possible cyberattack, and it's such an event could really light a fire under either lawmakers

and/or the white house, and i think there also have been posturing to leave themselves some protections in case there is. there was an attack in saudi arabia on one of the oil companies there, a cyberattack. it's not unheard of. and it could very well happen here. >> i think that speaks directly to the issue, actually there are people who say it would take a massive or catastrophic cyberattack for us to pass some sort of regulations, at which point there would be a danger in overreaching. that's a valid concern. we've've seep in the last year more information come out about what is possible during a cyberattack. some of it because we suddenly have information about what the u.s. government is capable of doing. i personally don't think that's a complete coincidence. now that this knowledge is out there, it came at a time when

the security legislation -- we may hear more reports of the sorts of attacks may have been previously kept under wraps. now we'll start hearing maybe the stock exchange was hit, or this company -- >> well, under the laws, companies have to report cyber attacks in their sec filings. so, we definitely may see more disclosure, and that may alarm members of the public and get something moving. >> i think one of the most interesting story lines is the divide between senators mccain and lieberman, because they're the closest of friends, the three amigos, and grant, especially on national security issues is where they almost always see eye-to-eye, and yet this is lieberman's baby here, his biggest goal before -- he retires and mccain is torpedoing it, and there were negotiations and leashman -- aides were saying he exploded at

mccain, saying, how could you do this? how are you going to feel if a year from now there's an attack and people die? and you blocked this? and of course mccain comes back and says, you have no right to question my credibility on national security issues. so i think that's an interesting storyline that speaks speaks tow seriously people take this. >> you mentioned best practices. don't most corporations already have a cybersecurity system in place? what would this legislation add to it? >> the answer to that question, most of the -- i would hesitate to say that. you would be very surprised even sophisticated technology companies that don't implement what we consider best practices right now. the government really doesn't implement best practices right now. the pentagon has had to go through massive cybersecurity upgrades in the last five or ten years because there were so many vulnerabilities. a laptop stolen from the

department of veteran affairs. the state of cybersecurity is very bad. you can't overstate we're very, very vulnerable. the question is whether regulations would change that. and that's open to debate. you can't really dictate something that technology can't work around. one of the same gonzalez the online piracy debate. i you implement certain technical safe guards there will be a way for criminals to work around them, and behavior is all you can dictate and that's what the legislation is trying to do. trying to get companies to take seriously the issue of the threat. i think that they do, depending on the bottom line, and so if it's not -- if the threat is small enough that it's catastrophic, the company would go out of business. there are companies that basically that's the bet they're making. if they get hit with the attack, they're going out of business anyway, and that's frightening, especially if you're talking about a company that consumers depend on, power, transportation. that's the situation.

>> there are corporate interests that want some type of legislation because they want something from the government. almost like a one-way street. they want to get the information but maybe not have to give it in return. so that would be interesting to see as well. i think there is some momentum for something, but time will tell whether the parties and the divide can be breached and whether the political rhetoric now that's been heating up, can -- >> you mentioned the parties threw a little fuel on the fire at their conventions. how did they do that? >> well, it was a republicans in their platform, pointed fingers at the obama administration, said that they hadn't done enough. they also said the obama strategy for cyber security was

another example of overregulation and overreach. fitting with the -- mitt romney's theme about obama, the obama administration and business. and on the other hand, democrats, right after the lieberman bill faltered, the white house was pointing fingers at republicans for thwarting the bill. a much-needed bill, and the democratic platform also conversely touted the white house's actions and again reiterated the need for some type of requirement for to protect the critical infrastructure. >> brendon do you see this as an issue that john mccain would filibuster? >> yes. right how to -- they did. they filibustered it and stopped it in the senate. i think one interesting

question, like elizabeth mentioned, the information sharing is a part that everybody wants but the lieberman bill had standards, and the executive order wouldn't be able to have the information sharing. most likely would only have the standards. i think it's an interesting question, if the white house goes ahead and does a protective order, will there then be any momentum on the hill to at least get the information sharing piece done. even then, though, there are questions about a privacy protections that civil liberty groups and the white house expressed concern about the republican bill, it would allow companies to just hand over all this really permanent information -- personal information to the nsa orcry. but bins don't like the idea of any additional stuff they have to take. they don't want to do that. so, that's an interesting question. >> very quickly, we have to move on to another issue. yes or no, senate -- congressional action or

executive order action? >> executive order is more likely. >> i actually wouldn't give a hope on information sharing in congress. i think the house bill with privacy protection has a shot. >> i'm going to side with him. there's a possibility the side could coe aless around the information sharing. >> another issue we may see on the technology front this fall. >> well, another big issue is spectrum auctions, which the sec is going to be taking up. moving ahead with this month. this is a bill that was passed earlier this year with a tax cut extensions and sort of the last moment to raise revenue they tacked on a provision that gave the sec the authority to encourage television broadcasters to give up their licenses for frequencies and then to make room in the air waves for cell phone providers, because with all the growth of smartphone and tablet computers, there's a crunch for frequencies, and they're trying

to give these groups that have had it for a long time, the broadcasters to give up their licenses for cellular provider. it's obviously a really complicated process and trying to get it done by 2014, which might sound slow but it's an aggressive timeline for the government. >> the auctions would not take place until 2014? >> that's right. that's the fastest timine anyone has been talking about. the auctions tapes by 2014. the interesting thing is they're trying to shoot to do this simultaneously. they'll have a process to get the licenses from the broadcasters and then give them to the cellular providers simultaneous limp the big question is, how many broadcasters going to want to participate. it means going out of business and not being able to broadcast anymore. so people are asking how much money it will take. >> are we going to see more

verizon cable company deals like we saw? >> the cable companies as far as i know don't have anymore spectrum so that well has run dry. we may see verizon, at&t, perhaps t-mobile, the people who use spectrum, going out and fining it wherever it exists exd that is what a lot of people thought the cable was bill, looking around for spectrum. most of the spectrum is held by the government, and in that case the pentagon has hand on most of it. so if we're looking for more air waves, all roads lead back to the pentagon. they've acknowledged that. we heard heard members of the administration acknowledge the government spectrum needs to be repurposed for commercial use. really what brendan was talking about the shift from video over cable connection to consuming on a tablet computer or smartphone.

that's driving the change in bandwidth. people want to watch video on their ipad and we have to make it work. >> the broadcasters will be reluctant, and when local stations start closing, we may hear something from congress. that's what we're talking about here, is local stations going out of business in exchange for money so their air waves can be given the wire carriers. >> the issue of the inseptembertive auctions of spectrum doesn't have the political divide that say a cybersecurity issue has. those parties supported the idea of the incentive auction, and recognized the need to get more spectrum out on the market for wireless companies to provide these services, which people want ask are clamoring for. at the same time we have industries that are divided, and i wouldn't be surprised if broadcasters did work through

lawmakers that raise questions about -- or raise concerns about what it's going to do to the local tv market. at the same time there are some broadcasters who would probably be willing to either have their spectrum repacked or moved, or want to call it quits and sell out. there was a report recently in the wall street journal about venture capitalists buying up small stations to their very uof heir spectrum, hoping the double action will be possible because the broadcasters would get to share in the profits. they would sell their spectrum back to the government and the government could -- would auction it off to wireless companies. and so the whole idea of this deal -- this deal was brokered as a way to incentivizes

broadcasters turning over little used resources. >> could we see private deals like verizon and cable? could we see sprint make some kind of arrangement private live without the government involvement? >> i think at&t made some smaller acquisitions after the t-mobile bid failed. they made some smaller acquisitions. not on the scale of verizon spectrum, but i think you may see those kinds of deals made where they can, because these big companies need the resources. >> the government will always be involved because any transfer of rights has to be approved by the fcc. but as i said, the light square spectrum, that was a private deal. there's talk of other companies being interested in that, if light squared decided not to move forward. so any spectrum out there not actively being deployed, probably ripe for someone, most likely a major wireless company. >> do you see light squared

coming back to the table and do they have allies in congress? >> they do. they have a massive lobbying operation going on. right now things aren't looking good for them. the spectrum they have was interfering with tts and they've backed away. but they're still out there and there's money behind them. they have allies in congress and also a lot of enemies on the hill. anybody allied with the gps community, and senator grassley put a hold on the fcc nominees for months. i don't think they'll forget the rope they didn't get confirmed for six months is because of this lightsquared issue. so it's a controversial topic, they're trying to find more spectrum or a swap. they're still trying to find something to build the network. >> you wanted to add something?

>> also a wait to share spectrum and lightsquared indicated they're interested in doing that. i wanted to bring back the topic of government spectrum. that where the government owns the most spectrum, and the chairman of the fcc has actually been meeting with military leaders to try to explain how some of the spectrum either underutilized, could return to the market, and so i don't think anything is going to happen in time for the 2014 auction, but this industry needs -- has already -- is already up on he hill lobbying for even another auction, another spectrum auction, after this one. so, they don't see their needs

being alleviated by the incentive auctions. >> i think that's absolutely correct. based on the prosexes and demand for mobile data, the curve goes straight up. so, the administration's national broadband plan called for 500 megahertz of spectrum to be freed up. they already freed up 200 mega megagametes, and the projection is they would need significantly more band width. but instead of that next band of spectrum they're looking to free up from the pentagon, instead of auctioning it off they want to create a spectrum superhighway where multiple companies can run their services on it. that's years away. the the short term we don't know how it's going to work out.

>> you were at the consumer electronics show last year, and a lot of companies have technology where the network can now offer wireless coverage of what they're showing. so, is this going to restrict what the networks may be willing to give away or trade? >> i think so. you're talking about the broadcast networks? >> right. >> the broadcasters are also working on technology which they say will enable them to gain -- content to your mobile unit by graft platform, which is not quite the same as mobile. when they broadcast one to many it doesn't take up as much bandwit sort it's more scale everyone if arch is going to watch nbc on their ipods and nbc beliefs they have a mow efficient way to do it without giving up spectrum. these are technologies and

they're forward looking and adoption by the consumer market will have a lot to do with whether the propost sals gel through. >> one more issue. >> i think a couple court cases or events that have recently taken place are going to have a huge impact. one is the verizon cable deal. that's going to result in a few other spectrum deals like t-mobile is going to get some verizon spectrum. the other is the same-samsung case. apple won a huge patent infringement case against samsung. the bottom line is samsung hag to rethink its products in order not to violate the case. now android devices and other companies have to take seriously whether or not they're infringing on other technologies. >> this is after congress just overhauled the patent laws for

the first time in 60 years, and that was just last year. so, it remains to be seen whether there's going to be a move to -- on the hill to look at the patent issue again. certainly i think that some lawmakers are concerned about the apple-samsung case in that if the ruling stands and if apple is able to get injunction against samsung devices will be pulled off store shelves. we leave in a country that we not only like our nifty new devices but we want the cheap knockoffs, too. so, i mean, that's one of the realities. and if it becomes a trade war, if the patent war becomes a trade war you may see more interventions by the hill. >> i'd be surprised if devices got pulled from the shelves because there's so -- things change so quickly, new models all the time. so by the time samsung appeals and by the time this gets sorted

out. the devices will be three generations old and won't be on the shelves anymore anyway. maybe that will come up but my guess that won't happen in time. >> the iphone 5 is set to come out next week. so, maybe we've already moved on. >> right. >> what haven't we talk about? >> net neutrality was a hot topic in the presidential -- at the conventions as well. we thought it had been resolved by the fcc. although there's this lingering court case, verizon and metro pcs are challenging the fcc's neutrality rules in court, and that case probably won't go to trial until the end of the year, maybe early next year. but there was a lot of rhetoric at the conventions about net neutrality and whether it's a good policy or not. the republicans very much

adopted a platform plank that called for the repeal of net neutrality rules, and while -- so, i think that is allowing the house republicans -- they've been calling attention to that and raising questions about net neutrality for a while. so it will be interesting to seek depending on how the election goes, how the congressional elections go, whether there's also a move to undo some of the rules like net neutrality. >> i'm not a lawyer but i'm told the case for net neutrality regulations is debatable at best. so the court challenges have a real -- the last time comcast challenged the net neutrality regulations in 2010, they won, and they threw them out. reclassifications of broadband service was brought up as an option to get around that.

they elected not to do that and reworked the rule inside the way they thought would stand up in court. aside from that, the republican party has tried to conflate net new that and the internet freedom issue and portrayed it as democrats interfering with the internet, and the net neutrality campaign promise of 2008 came at a very different time. now, the nation's larger internet providers owns one of the broadcast networks. verizon and cable has a deal going on and we're seeing isps and content providers link up. these are exactly concerns about access that proponents of net neutrality raised. so it's more relevant today than before. but whether or not will stan up in court remains to be seen. >> also, the net neutral provisitations have been imbedded in the telecom deals.

it's a condition of a merger they have these reviews and that they have to make net neutrality incorporated into their business plan. >> and the net neutrality might get stripped down. i agree that -- i'm not a lawyer but the dc circuit was the court that knocked down the fccs rules before and they were clear about it and this is the same court. the fcc got up lucky. eight courts and they got the same one. it seems up likely ill will survive in the court. and again, i think it's interesting that in both party platform, internet freedom was mentioned. it's become a hot topic, especially since the piracy posts. everyone wants to jump on the band wagon of internet freedom but nobody has a clear definition of what that means.

net neutrality is a great example of where two sides say the opposite. 'llans say this is a horrible invasion of internet freedom, the government regulating the internet. and democrats say you neated in neutral to have a free and open internet or you'll have corporations dominate it. >> the ore gyp of the internet freedom term came during the arab spring when the government inside the middle east shut down the internet to try to disburse protesters or protesters could not use social media to organize, and communicate. but it's interesting how in our own country, the definitions have evolved and been politicized. >> last word. >> i think the internet freedom may be the issue of next year, especially if we do see things are going on in syria and other parted of the middle east. repression of communications is a f